I am not sure that I would agree that you are comparing like with
like here Moose. The left hand image is out of focus, the right hand
is in focus.
I agree that the scan of the print lacks contrast compared with the
film scan, but I put this down to the fact that the former is scanned
from a reflective medium - the latter does not lose contrast because
light is transmitted through the medium. I have found this with my
rare scans of prints, which I do only when I have no alternative.
Chris
At 00:28 -0700 15/9/02, dreammoose wrote:
I've thought all along that a big part of the problem is the combo
of automated printing and scanning a 4x6 print. Now I have some
evidence to offer
Check out
<http://home.attbi.com/0.000000E+00dreammoose/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-322698.html>
.
Side by side are 2 crops of the same shot. The original was shot
5/1/02 with an OM-4(T) and Tamron SP 60-300mm lens, set at
300mm/f5.6 and either 1/60 or 1/125 with the lens resting on the car
window (engine off!!) to steady it.
The left one is a 600dpi flatbed scan of a 4x6in. print from Kodak
Royal processing. The right one is a 2720dpi scan with a Can*n
FS2710. This gives roughly the same image resolution without any
resampling. The area shown is about 300f the width and 260f the
height of the full frame, or about 80f the area.
As I expected, the film scanner image is much sharper. I've said
before that print emulsions are just not designed to hold high
resolutions, but I was a little surprised at how big the difference
is.
--
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
?
+44 (0)7092 251126
mailto:imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
... a nascent photo library.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|